07.01.16
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 11:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
But the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), where corruption has been rather rampant, gets more of a say as a result
Summary: The outcome of the US Supreme Court refusing to intervene in the Sequenom v Ariosa case — a case which would have put at risk the strongly-worded Alice and Mayo decisions (SCOTUS level)
WITH a software patents-friendly USPTO and software patents-hostile courts (even in the US) there certainly is a problem. One strives to make more money by granting (accepting) as much as 92% of applications (causing a massive spike in grants) and another actually delivers justice, where there’s no incentive to ‘bless’ every patent that’s at stake. It’s a bit like EPO examination versus reassessment at the appeal boards or USPTO versus PTAB.
A new article by Professor Dennis Crouch says that the Supreme Court will deal with Life Tech v Promega but not with a lot of other cases. “Alice and Mayo Remain” says another article in relation to the Sequenom petition (mentioned here before), which is very good news as it indicates that software patents will carry on dying, at least in the courts and at PTAB (irrespective of how reckless and selfish the USPTO chooses to be). “Patentees in the biotech and software industries had placed substantial hope on the pending Supreme Court case of Sequenom v. Ariosa,” wrote Crouch. “The hope being that the case would serve as a vehicle for the Court to step-back from the strong language of Alice and Mayo that has led to rejection and invalidation for many. The Supreme Court has now denied certiorari in Sequenom – effectively ending that campaign.”
Fantastic!
“It’s a bit like EPO examination versus reassessment at the appeal boards or USPTO versus PTAB.”We shortly thereafter found many polite complaints about this in patent lawyers’ Web sites like this one. It’s not exactly shocking that patent lawyers are sad that SCOTUS Justices won’t give software patents another chance. Watch how this gets framed as a ‘clarification’ issue (it’s not) over at patent lawyers’ Web sites that constantly bemoan this decision. Even some financial sites wrote about it (after earlier reports that pertain to financial speculations), life science Web sites wrote about it [1, 2, 3], and lobbyists of software patents were not exactly enthusiastic. “Drug industry overstates impact of patent reviews on innovation” is one good article about it (more from the same site), here is an objective site, and here is MIP writing about both aforementioned cases. “Fingers Crossed” is how some patent maximalists put it ahead of the decision, barely hiding their biases. The corporate media covered this as well [1, 2, 3, 4]. It’s quite unusual for those kinds of stories.
Ars Technica wrote about the former case as follows: “The US Supreme Court has taken up its next patent case, which may well lead to another decision sharply overturning a ruling by the nation’s top patent court.
“As we are going to show later, CAFC is already pushing against Alice in a newly-issued decision.”Here’s how the case made it to the high court: Life Technologies Corporation, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, manufactures a genetic testing kit in the United Kingdom. The company sells this product worldwide. Life Tech made one element of the kit, called a Taq polymerase, in the United States and then shipped it to the UK to combine with the larger product.”
This case, unlike the latter one, hardly threatens Alice and Mayo in any way.
The only downside is that, in the words of the EFF, “Supreme Court Gives More Leeway to Lower Courts on Patents and Copyright: Will Lower Courts Champion Innovation?” Remember that by giving more influence to lower courts like CAFC the reality is that those who brought software patents to the US in the first place will gain more power. As we are going to show later, CAFC is already pushing against Alice in a newly-issued decision. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 10:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: On the agenda of the supposedly ‘liberal’ side (hawkish and corporatist in practice) there’s no reason for Hope of Change and new data suggests that patent practices are gradually ebbing away in the United States
THE USPTO strives to grant more and more patents, i.e. the mistake that the EPO repeats under Battistelli.
Now that Hillary Clinton makes her supposed position on patents publicly known, EPO mouthpieces say that “Clinton releases her patent to-do list, but it’s on the Hill where the reform agenda will be driven” and Jamie Love, a patent reformer (especially in the area of access to medicine) says “Hillary Clinton makes a few welcome suggestions regarding reforms of patent litigation in US.”
“The patent world’s mumbo-jumbo, in particular misleading euphemisms like ‘protection’, ‘property’, ‘asset’, ‘assertion’, and ‘innovation’ aren’t exactly mesmerising and we hope that people everywhere will manage to filter the buzzwords and assess things for what they really are.”Here is the referenced page and some blurb from IP Watch about it. We don’t honestly think that Clinton would work for anyone other than herself and her campaign contributors, i.e. Wall Street, oligarchs (like Donald Trump) and large corporations, but giving her the benefit of the doubt, let’s see what TechDirt made of it after careful analysis. TechDirt published two articles on the subject; one was titled “Hillary Clinton’s Tech Policy Plan Includes Some Empty Broadband Promises And A Continued War On Encryption” and another “Hillary Clinton’s Intellectual Property Platform: Too Vague & Confusing”. This pretty much reaffirms what we believed all along. Lots of promises, no expected delivery. It’s campaign season’s rhetoric, just like Clinton’s (her husband) and Obama’s (who now endorses her, having failed to make any positive change in the patent system). Speaking of spouses, see “Quick Hit: Massachusetts Case Litigating Spouse’s Interest in Invention.” It comes from Patently-O and it says: “I can’t find anything available on line that is not behind a paywall, so… Recall that I’ve written here about how there’s an interesting question as to whether in a community property state the spouse of an inventor has an interest in inventions (and other IP). Defendants have, so far unsuccessfully, taken quitclaims from the spouse in an effort to defeat infringement suits, as a result.
“There’s a Massachusetts appeal pending where, from what I can tell from what I’ve found on-line, the spouse of an inventor is claiming that because funds from a joint bank account were used on the invention, she has an interest in it. The case is Mazzu v. Mazzu, No. 2015-P-16011, and it is on appeal from the Suffolk Count Superior Court to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. Who knows what we will learn.”
Another Patently-O article, this one by Jason Rantanen, says that “Professor Radin’s discussion is worth a read for the eloquent way that she captures and synthesizes the raw strands floating around in current discussions about patent claims.”
“This whole election cycle is already well down the drain as people are basically presented with the choice between an oligarch and one who works for oligarchs.”The patent world’s mumbo-jumbo, in particular misleading euphemisms like ‘protection’, ‘property’, ‘asset’, ‘assertion’, and ‘innovation’ aren’t exactly mesmerising and we hope that people everywhere will manage to filter the buzzwords and assess things for what they really are. Another new Patently-O article is particularly interesting as there’s a graph, derived from raw data, showing a decline in the number of newly-registered patent practitioners since Obama took public office. Here is the caveat: “The above graph shows only initial registrations. It does not show changes in which a patent agent becomes a patent attorney, as the practitioner does not receive a new registration number. The registrations for 2015 indicate that 42.4% of the initial registrations were for patent attorneys and 57.6% were for patent agents (some of whom later became or will become patent attorneys).”
Whatever happens next in the US, we believe that neither Clinton nor Trump will make things any better. This whole election cycle is already well down the drain as people are basically presented with the choice between an oligarch and one who works for oligarchs. It’s somewhat of a lost cause. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 10:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Whose pockets are deepest? When the USPTO is run by people from Google and from IBM…
Summary: A couple of new examples of patent cases where the bigger company (with deeper pockets) wins, either by injunctions against small companies or by invalidating the patents of smaller companies
“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday,” according to Reuters, “refused to review a case involving the cancellation of a Versata Inc patent that had previously been the subject of a $345 million jury verdict against enterprise software maker SAP SE.”
“By deciding not to take up the case, the Supreme Court left intact a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirming the patent’s invalidation, which Versata said casts too wide a net in categorizing patents as financial in nature.”
–ReutersThe US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), by refusing to step in, does not put at danger decisions such as Alice, which is probably what we want. This is about CAFC ruling against patents. To quote Reuters: “By deciding not to take up the case, the Supreme Court left intact a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirming the patent’s invalidation, which Versata said casts too wide a net in categorizing patents as financial in nature.”
In other news, in light of the Cisco v Arista case (covered here before), Arista is complaining [1, 2, 3]. “The International Trade Commission issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order for Arista infringing three patents in an investigation brought by Cisco Systems relating to ethernet switch products,” MIP summarised. The ITC’s build-in bias is a subject we tackled here before. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The “historic achievement” is destroying the European Patent Organisation in just two days
Summary: In secretive sessions behind closed doors Battistelli and the Administrative Council conspired to send the no-longer-independent boards of appeal to exile, assuring that patent quality will nosedive and make the Office akin to a registration/filing office
THE EPO scandals should matter to everyone as everybody is effected, not only Europeans. This is a war that’s waged between a class (rich people) and an occupation (patent lawyers) against everybody else. These rich people and patent lawyers are not necessarily European at all; they have clients from other countries/continents and some are not even based in Europe. A Napoleonic egoistic president who cares not about his popularity keeps leading the charge and they (along with the Administrative Council, typically lawyers and heads of national patent offices themselves) support him. As last night's report reminds us, staff (examiners, i.e. scientists) is just collateral damage and judges — i.e. people whose role is to uphold the rule of law (unlike lawyers who typically try to work around the law) — are being driven to exile, as per this morning's leak (now available as text). One might easily be led to believe that we’re dealing here with a developing nation (or ‘third world country’ as some call it), but this is good old Europe, where systemic corruption is apparently still rampant. Patent examination is no longer appreciated because it’s just easier to charge applicants for virtually nothing. It’s like selling ‘holy’ water.
What the EPO now calls “reform” is basically a continuation of demolition of the appeals process, i.e. of quality control. A post in the EPLAW blog about the so-called reform says the following this morning: [found via this comment]
The structural reform of the Boards of Appeal (BOA) aims to increase their organizational and managerial autonomy, the perception of their independence and also their efficiency, in order to respect the principle of effective legal protection within the current legal framework of the European Patent Convention.
It introduces a new institutional framework in which the BOA will no longer be a Directorate General of the EPO directed by a Vice-President but a separate unit called Boards of Appeals Unit headed by a newly created President of the BOA. The Chairman of the Enlarged BOA will act as President of the BOA. The President of the EPO will delegate to the President of the BOA managerial functions and powers including the right to propose new members of the BOA and to propose re-appointment after the term of appointment.
A new advisory body, the Boards of Appeal Committee (BOAC) is created as a subsidiary body of the Administrative Council (AC), composed of six members appointed by the AC, three of them representatives of the member states in the AC and another three from among serving or former judges of international or national courts. The President of the EPO and the President of the BOA have the right to attend BOAC meetings, without voting rights.
BOAC is a funny name. Why did Battistelli et al not just call it “BUNK”, for the whole ‘reform’ is just bunk? For quite some time now we have hypothesised that the Unitary Patent Court/s would replace the boards if not (at best) complement their existing functionality, but right now Battistelli, his Office, a pro-UPC baroness and legal professionals pretty much acknowledge that the UPC is in shambles. It’s impossible to deny, but MIP carries on with its UPC progress [sic] reports today (early in the morning).
How did we end up with a demolished set of boards (of appeal)? How did that happen so fast? Apparently Team Battistelli had people stay up until 2 AM to accomplish this task. As one person put it this morning: “It seems that the new version of the reform of the BOA was adopted with only one vote against (NL) and two abstentions (HU, IT).” This person shared “Reform of the BoA, final version, with modifications highlighted.” [PDF]
“My respect to the representatives of NL, HU and IT,” wrote another person. “Shame on all the others!” The leak that we published this morning caught the attention of the following commenter who wrote:
Just seen a report on Techrights:
http://techrights.org/2016/07/01/leaked-ac-report/
Reform of the BoAs: 35 in favour, 2 abstentions, 1 against.
Reforms include:
relocation of the BoAs to a different building in Munich;
increase of the appeal fees;
new (career) structure;
new conflict of interest rules.
There are no other words for it, what a bloody disgrace! The last point (on conflicts of interest) particularly sticks in my craw. Even CIPA questioned the legality / enforceability of those rules (“We question whether broad discretionary proposals would be enforceable in a national court if necessary”). And yet this point seems to have been totally lost on more than 90% of the delegations to the AC.
The other points in the report are almost too much to bear (“the Office presented a comprehensive social report, highly appreciated by the delegations”, blah, blah, blah). The final straw has to be postponement of discussion of disciplinary procedures. That is nothing more than code for “Carry on as you were, take your decisions and we will cover it all up afterwards”.
This seems like a massive loss for the EPO and a win for Battistelli, whose interests are very different from the EPO’s. One person asked a short while ago: “Isn’t there anything we can do? I realize that many of the people who write are EPO employees and fear for their salaries/pensions, but not everyone, surely.”
Even past employees of the EPO are affected by this. Past patent recipients are likewise affected by this. Entire industries in Europe are negatively affected by this. Look what Battistelli has done. What will remain of the EPO by the time he leaves or gets sacked? Surely, the disaster which the EPO has become will cost a lot of money to the European economy; Europe will rot if this isn’t stopped. The European Patent Office has just deepened the crisis and it will be harder to undo if Battistelli’s attacks on the boards get implemented (not just reoccupying vacant openings). The EPO's PR team pretends everything is great, but exactly the opposite is true (that’s why it hired disaster management professionals from the outside). Is Australia wishing to be associated with Battistelli and his declining Office starting today? “On 1 July 2016,” this article says, “the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program between the Australian Patent Office and the European Patent Office (EPO) begins.”
Is this likely to end up like the previous pilot programme which blew up in the EPO's face? Or the shortening of appeal periods (also effective starting today)?
Reading through some comments in IP Kat this morning, fury and despair are dominant. There is nothing at all to be tolerated, let alone celebrated.
One person wrote:
Let us face it, Battistelli has won the final battle. It is now clear that Battistelli can threaten the enlarged board of appeal publicly (that is the subject of this article) and get away with it. Any pretense of rule of law is abandoned.
It is now also clear that Battistelli can simply ignore the demands of the Council as he pleases (social dialogue, justice needs to be seen to be done, etc…). And it is also clear that he can fire whomever he pleases any time he pleases as he sees fit.
He won.
Regarding the EPO’s monopoly one person said:
My dear Anonymous friend, if the users are not happy with all this they can go somewhere else to get their European Patents.
Oh, wait – they can’t …
The following comment called it “end of the EPO saga and the lowest morality level in the history of the Office.”
We have now reached the end of the EPO saga and the lowest morality level in the history of the Office.
It it clear that BB with his incompetent team will now reign undisturbed for another two years with the full support of the AC, whose members he convinced with cooperation money and intimidated with all kinds of threats.
We can well imagine what they will produce in the coming two years with their absurd synergism.
Disgraceful the attitude of the German delegation and government who tolerate such a situation on their territory. But we know: they have their own interest as the German Office has always been in competition with the EPO !
Disgraceful also the attitude of attorneys and their associations, especially the German and British ones. They will now get the inevitable erosion of quality and (good for them!) no many chances to play around with the claims as – in the name of efficiiency – the procedure will become more and more strict.
Adieu to the good old days of the ideals! Adieu to the EPO as a model organisation! Adieu to the solid values of justice and respect ! The sharks are here.
“If these reports are true,” wrote another person, “then the reputation and functioning of the EPO has been dealt a mortal blow.”
If these reports are true, then the reputation and functioning of the EPO has been dealt a mortal blow. The AC has let the president off the hook yet again, when there could not have been more blatant evidence of him overreaching his powers (and even defying the will of the AC). I now struggle to conceive of a situation where the AC would impose severe sanctions (or indeed any sanctions at all) upon the president… so it is perhaps not all that fanciful after all to suggest that we could have a Guantanamo-am-Isar if it carries on this way.
Is there a well-informed reader who can provide us with information about how the various different delegations voted? Also, are there final forms of the texts of the proposals that have been approved by the AC? Whilst I am at a loss as to how this situation can be fixed, it will be important for the users to know which national delegations have effectively ignored their feedback.
Upon reflection, we should perhaps not be too surprised that BB was, in the words of a previous commentator, “granted impunity”. A much clearer infringement of the independence of the Boards of Appeal occurred when the president suspended (pending investigation) a member of the Boards. In addition to being contrary to the independence of the Boards, no one has ever seriously suggested that this action was anything other than a gross violation of the wording (and principles) of the EPC. And yet the AC officially sanctioned / pardoned that action. They also sanctioned the prolongation of the suspension of the member concerned, which (in view of the term of office of that member) could be viewed as dismissal in all but name, ie yet another contravention of the EPC. Next to these actions, the president sending a naughty letter looks like nothing to get too worked up about.
Which reminds me: did the AC decide what to do about the suspended member, given that the EBoA has closed the disciplinary proceedings without proposing dismissal? Under the provisions of the EPC, it would seem that the only viable course of action will be to reinstate the member, pay his costs for the proceedings (as well as salary withheld during the period of suspension) and leave him in peace to get on with his job. There is also an argument that his term of office should be extended for a period equal to that of the period of suspension.
But is any of that likely to happen, or will the AC sanction yet another violation of the EPC? At least the costs for the proceedings should be paid, as that has been ordered by the EBoA…. but, oh wait, I forgot that, thanks to the AC, the president can ignore the orders of all judiciary with total impunity!
Regarding “EPO communication,” one person said, “the Communication Department did yet another miracle” and to quote the reasons why:
The last “News from the Council” published by the EPO is clear: the last AC that took place the last two days in Munich was, if not a great success, at least an “historic achievement” (sic!). One can further read that the “social report [was] highly appreciated by the delegations”!! So one may gain the impression that everything went smoothly and parties are happy with our management and the situation in the EPO.
To put it mildly, this is far from being the truth. Or at least, this is far from being the perception of observers in and around the AC.
Fact is that in fine only ONE single topic was discussed in 2 days: DG3. And from the feedback gathered, (see below) the AC was very dense, including a working session until 2 o’clock in the morning. It has been a very hard ride for all participants, in particular for the President and his team.
One thing the EPO official communication is correct about: however sweaty, muddy and tough the whole game was in the end, what counts is that the president is still standing. Eventually, nobody cares if the game has been won during the prolongation, penalty shot or many yellow cards have been handed out… let alone if the real problems have not been addressed.
Regarding the DG3 ‘independence’ (“23 interventions, no support but… expecting overnight a fundamental miracle”):
As indicated above, the AC only dealt with the single point of DG3 independence in two days: 23 interventions were made just on the first day. All of them, but 3, very critical of the original proposed reform.
In substance the criticisms broadly took on board the comments made by AMBA and the Staff Representation. These were mainly aimed at the potential interference or abuse of influence that the president could still have on the independence of the board such as:
o Delegation of functions and power and the revocation of that delegation;
o Right of nomination of BoA and its president (more or less qualified as “Systemwidrig” by the DE);
o Other topics such as careers, budget, Rules of Procedure, etc…;
o Many insisted on the need to involve all parties in a consultation to produce a document having a wide acceptance.
In the other fields that are loosely linked to the issue of independence but were adamantly presented by the Office as “part of the package”, the criticism was equally severe:
o The Tax structure was heavily criticised by most interveners: “it does not make sense cut the filing costs of patents on the one hand and, on the other hand, render their defence expensive”, said more or less (not verbatim) the German delegation;
o The relocation of building was broadly criticised as neither fit for purpose and nor economically making sense;
o Last but not least the “post-employment” reform was discussed only in this context but was broadly perceived by most as neither useful in this context and wrong in its form: “es wirkt wie ein Fremdkörper”, so the DE Delegation.
Despite the flood of criticism, the Board 28 was tasked to work overnight on a new amended version taking on board the above comments…. “Mission impossible” was the comment from several observers.
This is just about the worst possible outcome and they rushed it so that it all happened in just two days without chance/opportunity for vetoes (many people are on holiday right now). Incidentally, it also helped take the abuses against EPO staff off the table and out of the agenda.
Finally, explains the following text, “sessions behind closed doors” went on, resulting in “flabbergasted” DG3 colleagues and “dizzy” staff representatives:
Showdown: a “compromise solution” (sic!) produced overnight to solve the problem of independence of DG3!
Some hope had been raised after that first day, that the AC had seen the light: the heavy discussions on the first day given some indication that not only the real problems have been grasped but also solutions integrating the comments made by observers, in first place AMBA, would be integrated. While no observers are allowed in the C-points (confidential), several participants reported that the level of disagreement continued in an even more intense during these sessions behind closed doors form (cannot confirm that shouting may even have been
involved…).
But this hope evaporated quickly on the second day as a Rev.1 of both the independence document (CA/43/16 rev1) and the Post-service employment (CA/29/16 add.1rev.1) were tabled. It followed a surreal and short discussion were most intervening delegations explained their support for the suggested “compromise solution” (FR, DE, IT, SL, President). Despite warning from the IT, NL delegations, Epi and your staff representation, the document was “waved through” with only 2 abstentions (HR, IT) and one against (NL). The good intentions of the previous day towards consultation were forgo en: as an illustration, the observers, that is Epi/business Europe and the Staff representation, received the new version during the live session and nobody had a word about “statutory consultation” either.
Clearly some of the changes are positive in content, but the complexity of the dossier is such that, at this stage, it is too early to grasp their consequences. Fact is that these changes fail to take into consideration the main comments made the day before. It is even less understandable how this sudden change of mood came about. DG3 colleagues are flabbergasted and staff representatives dizzy. One remains sure: a fundamental document has been produced overnight, “mit heisser Nadel gestrickt”. God helps us… I suppose?
What an incredible coup that was. The EPO was right to call this “historic”. It’s definitely the lowest point in the EPO’s history, unless someone can point out to us something even worse. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“An Earthquake Would be Needed for the Administrative Council… Not to Support My Major Proposals.” –Benoît Battistelli
This is how Benoît Battistelli allegedly ‘buys’ the Administrative Council
Summary: The Administrative Council (AC) of the European Patent Organisation continues to show carelessness and apathy if not complicity by maintaining a deeply heartless approach and blind support for a President with 0% approval ratings (among polled staff)
WHEN IT COMES to the EPO, disregard for the rule of law, for the rights of staff and for anything other than self-servitude is the norm. We were therefore far from shocked by the Administrative Council’s attitude this week. The Administrative Council is now complicit rather than merely apathetic or misinformed (ignorance as an excuse). It actively helps Battistelli crush the EPO, destroy the lives of staff, and basically discredit the European Union as a whole (bringing it closer to a state of collapse). This matters not only to people who work within or interact with the EPO; it should matter to everybody in the world, not just in Europe. This is a coup by neo-conservatives-like charlatans from ENA and until/unless they are stopped, there are going to be severe long-term consequences. It’s a truly destructive force.
“This matters not only to people who work within or interact with the EPO; it should matter to everybody in the world, not just in Europe.”The Administrative Council has no excuses for its behaviour and Mr. Kongstad clearly returned to Battistelli’s lap 4 months after his strongly-worded letter. Battistelli made a mockery of nearly every member of the Administrative Council as he didn't do anything they told him to and yet his sacking isn’t even on the agenda. Following last night's report and this morning's leak we now have some updates from an insider.
“Social dialog and other “minor” issues,” noted the person (referring to social unrest as a minor issue sarcastically), “circulez ya rien à voir!”
Here is a roundup of the relevant developments:
On the first day, the presidential activity report was the opportunity very little rejoicing from the delegations. Beyond the casual and traditional congratulations for the good production, all delegations asked pointed questions or even explicit criticism on the quality of the EPO work. A thorough report from the Office was requested. Further the Social climate was qualified as “unsatisfactory” (DE) or giving “great concerns” (NL) and it was promised to discuss this more in detail later.
Unfortunately, it seems that this point went under as the delegates rushed to catch their plane after lunch. The Social Report on the second day was the occasion of surreal congratulations for its “extensiveness” (NO) and the “great amount of facts” (UK). A staff representative reminded the AC that Laurent Prunier got suspended just one day before this very AC session. And Staff plea to urgently act on this front remained uncommented: not a word was lost on the deep social crisis in the EPO. And neither was the AC March resolution
mentioned.
All these points, including the two reform proposals (investigation CA 52/16 and disciplinary procedure) were brushed aside and pushed to the next council. The same applies to DG3 colleague who will have to wait until the next session of the AC (at least) to know how this noble institution intends to put into application the final decision taken of the Enlarged Board of Appeal several weeks ago. By then, the DG3 colleague will have been suspended almost two years.
“I suppose a mix of perplexity, disappointment and deep sadness are in order,” concluded the person who wrote the above.
Consider the Bretton Woods Legal Opinion and Report, which are circulating [PDF] among EPO staff [PDF] these days. “Bretton Woods was instructed by SUEPO to produce an opinion in respect of the rights of staff members,” as one person put it, but the Administrative Council continues to ignore any such reports, perhaps drunk on money (since months ago). As one reader put it to us: “Is it the Administrative Council or the great People’s Chamber in Pyongyang? I’m too punch-drunk to add anything else.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Click for full-sized version (the EPO‘s intranet version, i.e. the public is kept in the dark for now)
Summary: The outcome of the Administrative Council’s meeting, where Battistelli managed to avoid earthquakes and basically did just about everything he wanted, reinforcing the perception that there is no oversight
Yesterday’s AC meeting report was limited in terms of concrete evidence. Well, now we have the above (click to zoom in/get a full view). Noteworthy among IP Kat comments this morning is this person who says: “We will see how the new BoAC drafts the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal based on the wish of the President and the AC to reduce the backlog of appeal cases, ie to streamline and speed up the appeal proedure. No auxiliary requests and only revision of the decision of the department of first instance. Brave new EPO.”
“But still the president convinced the AC members (a qualified attorney/practitioner before the EPO between them?) to decide that they knew better.”
–AnonymousAnother person jokes: “I understand that a dead cat has been found, stuck in the ventilation system of the main building of the EPO. That was obviously the source of the overwhelming smell of corruption that lingered in the air. The problem is solved now.”
Another comment notes, “as far as I could see not one person who has to use the BoA, be it the parties, their representatives or the board members themselves, supported any of the proposed changes. But still the president convinced the AC members (a qualified attorney/practitioner before the EPO between them?) to decide that they knew better. But that’s democracy for you.”
“Nobody cares for the users,” replies the following comment. “Because they dared to criticize Battistelli they are getting a fee increase and no place in the Boac…”
“Battistelli plans another such lobbying event for next year (if he survives this long in his job).”Speaking of fee hikes (coverage here and elsewhere before), with examination quality at the EPO sinking why would anyone withdraw? This morning the EPO published update to examination fees (warning: epo.org) and last night we got another reminder that EPO applicants’ money gets wasted on Battistelli’s PR stunts and lobbying. To quote this new article: “For the Munich-based team of the VOK DAMS, agency for events and live-marketing, this year’s award was a special anniversary, as it was the 10th awards ceremony designed and implemented by VOK DAMS in a row, looking back on a long-standing the successful partnership between the EPO and VOK DAMS. [...] More than 550 VIP guests from politics, economy, and academia were on site at the MEO arena in Lisbon, when the EPO president opened the award ceremony together with the Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa and the EU commissioner for research, science and innovation Carlos Moedas.”
We have already mentioned the role played Moedas and António Costa, serving to reinforce the perception that this was just Battistelli’s wasteful lobbying effort (lobbying Portugal, the Commission and more). So far this week (in 3 days alone) the EPO has posted about half a dozen calls for nominations (in Twitter) for the next massive waste of money (millions of Euros). Battistelli plans another such lobbying event for next year (if he survives this long in his job). █
Update: Here is the above image as text (credit due):
News from the Administrative Council
Outcomes of the 148th session
The Administrative Council (AC) met on 29 and 30 June for its 148th meeting. Following the presentation of the activities report of the President, the AC members congratulated the Office, the management and the staff, for the excellent results achieved so far in 2016. In what was a dense agenda, the latest session of the AC notably included the adoption of the reform of the Boards of Appeal.
Structural reform of the Boards of Appeal
By a very large majority (35 in favour, 2 abstentions, 1 against), the delegations supported the proposal of the Office concerning the reform of the Boards of Appeal, which aims at increasing the perception of independence and the efficiency of the Boards, based on five pillars:
a structural reorganisation of the BOA, with the setting-up of a Boards of Appeal Committee (BOAC) as a subsidiary body of the Administrative Council and a unilateral act of delegation of powers from the President of the Office to a newly created President of the BOA;
a new career system for members and Chairmen of the BOA;
the relocation of the BOA to a separate building in Munich;
a better cost coverage for appeals;
specific rules on the prevention of conflict of interest for members and Chairmen of the BOA.
After two attempts of reform which failed in 1995 and 2004, this is an historic achievement.
Budgetary and financial items
The AC unanimously approved the account of the 2015 budget. The financial statements 2015 received an unreserved opinion from the Board of Auditors in compliance with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This is the sixth year in a row that this positive qualification has been obtained. The Board of Auditors expressed their positive comments in relation to the EPO Quality Management System, the project for the New Main building in The Hague and the good management of the IT roadmap. The delegations also gave a unanimous positive opinion on the initial budgetary orientations for 2017, showing their continuous support for the strategy of the Office.
The Council appointed Mr Groffmann as the new Administrator for the RFPSS, on a proposal of the President of the Office, in agreement with the Supervisory Board of the RFPSS.
Social topics
For the fourth year in a row, the Office presented a comprehensive social report, highly appreciated by the delegations. For the first time, the Office also submitted an environmental report. In relation to healthcare matters, the proposal of the Office to switch to a self-insurance scheme as of 1 January 2017 and the new contract awarded to Cigna for the administration of the healthcare reimbursement scheme, following an international tender were unanimously approved.
Because of the time necessary to finalise the reform of the BOA, it was not possible to address the two proposals on the revision of investigation guidelines and disciplinary procedures which are postponed to the October session of the AC.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.30.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Organisation’s latest meetup has been more of the same, i.e. a great disappointment
In the words of Board 28 (leaked document)
Summary: The EPO “crisis” — as Board 28 called it — lingers on because no substantial steps were taken towards Battistelli’s removal from Office for his violation of Office rules (his own rules) among other laws that Eponia perceives itself as exempt from
MANAGEMENT of the EPO (Office) continues to control the Organisation (the other EPO), which doesn’t seem to care about abuses of the law, human rights abuses, subversion of justice and so forth. Intuitively enough it means that the Organisation is somewhat complicit in the whole thing (see our previous post on this matter).
One new comment says that “it does turn out that there were hefty discussions throughout the day, with a particular emphasis over DG3 matters. The overarching Presidential powers were actually put into question. B28 [Board 28, which admitted there's a crisis] should be busy “squaring the circle” throughout the night and prepare revised documents. Whether they can deliver under such pressure acceptable texts remains to be seen. These should also withstand scrutiny after been adopted in the hectic atmosphere of the AC.” [Administrative Council]
“Today the members of the AC disgraced themselves,” another person wrote. “First they granted Benoit Battistelli impunity for his obstruction to justice and then they approved his disastrous reform of the Boards. We can play a requiem for the independent judiciary review of the EPO decisions. Shame on the members of the Council!”
Here is something that a random EPO worker wished to tell us following our publication of some text read out loud at the meeting (the word is spreading out fast and Techrights is under very heavy load tonight — to the point of becoming inaccessible at times):
It’s a very sad day in the history of the EPO, the entire staff and the democracy in Europe in general! Today I’m so ashamed to hold a European nationality, however I will fight them till my very last breath of air. What Battistelli and his thugs did to Laurent Prunier, Els, Ion and all the other staff reps and staff members, it beggars description. Let’s wait and see if we can achieve something through the national court(s). I’m afraid that this will be SUEPO’s last option in this desperate fight. Poor Laurent, it breaks my heart to see him suffer. He is one of the most competent and intelligent persons I know. That said, here is some more additional insider info…
All delegations find the increase in production figures great, the reduction of sick leave great (despite the fact that none of them can ascertain that the figures from VP1 are not fake ones; they also have no idea how bad currently are sick colleagues “dealt with” to achieve such questionable figures).
Delegations stress that quality is important (hahahahaha) and find that the social climate is not at his best (arghhhhhhh); Delegations await with great excitement the results of the “social study” and Oshra (we remind you that for both exercises your staff reps were not genuinely associated); the President is confident that the results will be fine (sighs; sobs)
The DG3 reform does not fly as presented and must be discussed further; Battistelli is happy to have signed a MoU with a union representing 1% of staff and accuses SUEPO of organising a public campaign against him.
No revision of the disciplinary sanctions for Ion and Malika, only an insufficient one for Els (he cancelled the reduction of her pension but she remains fired, no one complains).
Your central Staff Committee representatives remind the AC delegations of the worrying results regarding quality obtained via the Technologia survey, the (too) high pressure for staff, the undue sanctions on staff reps not revised, the 20 demonstrations organised so far, the strike with 2700 members etc. No comment nor question from any delegation.
A lot of the claims from EPO management are lies, including the claims about production. We wrote about this before and various insiders tell us the same thing. The EPO’s management has a well-documented record of lying to staff, to journalists and so on. The integrity of the EPO as a whole (including the Organisation) is rapidly descending to zero and the delegates (part of the Organisation) do not seem to mind. They don’t care enough to actually take action. What an historic coup. Benoît Battistelli may be to the Organisation and the EPC what Nigel Farage is to the European Union and the Lisbon Treaty. They have secured their names in history books, but primarily as villians. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA